Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

Iraqi soldiers celebrate after receiving new rifles from the U.S. forces in Baghdad, Iraq. U.S. forces have given the Iraqi army 800 pieces of M-16 and M-4 rifles as a part of the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.

Act Locally » January 2, 2009

We Arm the World

A $7 billion missile-defense system for the United Arab Emirates. An estimated $15 billion potential sale of Lockheed Martin’s brand-new fighter plane to Israel. Billions of dollars in weaponry for Taiwan and Turkey. These and other recent deals helped make the United States the world’s leading arms-exporting nation.

In 2007, U.S. foreign military sales agreements totaled more than $32 billion – nearly triple the amount during President Bush’s first full year in office.

The Pentagon routinely justifies weapons sales as “promoting regional stability,” but many of these arms end up in the world’s war zones. In 2006 and 2007, the five biggest recipients of U.S. weapons were Pakistan ($3.5 billion), Iraq ($2.2 billion), Israel ($2.2 billion), Afghanistan ($1.9 billion) and Colombia ($580 million) – all countries where conflict rages.

In Pakistan, the fighting ranges from communal violence and state repression, to attacks against India, to deadly battles between Pakistani military and al Qaeda forces in the northwest provinces. Israel has used U.S.-supplied weapons in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as in the 2006 invasion of Lebanon. Colombia uses U.S. weaponry to fight the drug war. Of the 27 major conflicts during 2006 and 2007, 19 of them involved U.S-supplied weapons.

While full data is not yet available for 2008, the United States continues to flood warzones with more destabilizing weapons. In 2008, the Pentagon brokered more than $12.5 billion in possible foreign military sales to Iraq, including guns, ammunition, tanks and attack helicopters.

Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi analyst with American Friends Service Committee, notes the chance that this weaponry will promote peace and democracy in Iraq is slim.

“The current Iraqi armed forces are the same forces and militias that have been committing ethnic and sectarian cleansing during the last years and they have a violent record full of human rights violations, torture and assassinations,” says Jarrar.

What’s more, the United States cannot successfully track its weapons. Hundreds of thousands of U.S.-supplied pistols and automatic weapons destined for Iraqi security forces between 2004 and 2005 remain lost, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The Pentagon has “no idea where they are,” Rachel Stohl, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information, a national-security think tank, told the Washington Post in 2007. “It likely means that the United States is unintentionally providing weapons to bad actors.”

U.S. law curbs weapons sales to countries engaged in a “gross and consistent” pattern of human rights abuses or to countries using U.S. weapons for aggressive purposes. But these requirements are often set aside in favor of short-term objectives.

Michael Klare, director of the Amherst, Mass.-based Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies, has followed the arms trade for decades. He discounts official claims that the delivery of arms can help promote stability.

“The more we help one side, the more that regime’s opponents are driven to seek arms from another supplier, leading to an inevitable spiral of arms buying, provocation and conflict,” Klare says.

According to Stohl, “The Bush administration has demonstrated a willingness to provide weapons and military training to weak and failing states and countries that have been repeatedly criticized by the U.S. State Department for human rights violations, lack of democracy and even support of terrorism.”

The Obama administration could mark a new era in arms trade. On the campaign trail, Obama expressed openness to signing the global cluster munitions ban, but he has yet to speak about a global Arms Trade Treaty – which would establish more rigorous conditions for weapons exports – or about curbing weapons sales, in general.

“The arms trade is never a panacea for instability,” Klare says. “It can only enflame regional tensions and heighten the risk of war.”

[Editor’s note: The findings in this article are drawn from Weapons at War 2008: Beyond the Bush Legacy, which Berrigan co-wrote with William D. Hartung, director of the New America Foundation’s Arms and Security Initiative. For a copy of the complete report, email berrigan@newamerica.net.]

In Pakistan, the conflict ranges from communal hostility and land repression, to attacks against India, to noxious battles between Asiatic expeditionary and al FTO forces in the north provinces. Zion has utilised U.S.-supplied weapons in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as in the 2006 entrance of Lebanon. Colombia uses U.S. instrumentality to fisticuffs the take war. Of the 27 field conflicts during 2006 and 2007, 19 of them participating U.S-supplied weapons.
=============================================
HH0-120 dumpsHH0-120 examHH0-120 questionsPosted by ping123 on 2010-08-21 03:09:22

I can't say that I am happy to read the facts and news presented in this article, but I appreciate your willingness to share the truth. I hope to read more positive articles in the future from this site.Posted by george foreman on 2010-07-29 03:35:57

A better idea?
Yes, genuine peace is achieved through mutual disarmament not unilateral disarmament. Of course supremacists are looking for a different sort of "peace", something that most of us would describe as subjugation.
Real peace is generally concurrent with justice, to identify those who seek peace we need to find those who strive for justice. Those who promote disarming the weak in the absence of justice serve only the cause of violence.Posted by ron andreas on 2009-01-10 13:14:24

Perhaps if we were to simply pull out of Iraq and take all the guns with us the other side (armed primarily with Russian and Chinese AK-47s) would quickly bring an end to the conflict...
A better idea?
I expect the author is generally anti-gun, so be happy. These are guns which will not be sold here in the states.Posted by whattheheck on 2009-01-10 13:06:39

"In Pakistan, the fighting ranges from communal violence and state repression, to attacks against India"
With this statement, Frida presupposes that the BJP Hindu Rightwing seperatist party claims that Pakistan attacked India in Mumbai are proven facts, a dubious thesis. Remember that not even the FBI will support this assertion. If another writer were to take this action I would likely interpret warmongering motives. I am at a loss to explain Frida's participation in the promotion or rationalisation of ongoing aggression on Pakitan.Posted by ron andreas on 2009-01-05 15:33:16